Tag: maharera

Mumbai
After the representatives of a real estate firm repeatedly failed to appear before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA), the company has been restrained from selling, accepting bookings or transferring any unsold flat in a project at Marine Lines till a complaint by a woman tenant of the redevelopment project is resolved.

According to the complaint filed by Pervin Bahadurji, she had surrendered her premises for the redevelopment of Marine Palace off Princess Street at Marine Lines and was allocated flat no. 2101on the 21st floor of the building with carpet area 1221.39 sqft by developer Alamdar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.

As per an agreement signed on March 15, 2017, she was supposed to get possession within 42 months from the first commencement certificate. The developer had also agreed to pay rent to her for temporary alternative accommodation but the rent was stopped from March 19, 2019.

Advocate Avinash Pawar, appearing for Bahadurji, submitted that the commencement certificate (CC) issued by the planning authority showed 20th floor as the last floor in the building, which means that the developer was not permitted to construct the 21st floor where the flat has been promised. The complainant requested MahaRERA to direct the developer to execute a supplementary agreement for allotting her a flat on the 20th floor of the building.

According to the registration page of Marine Palace project, the completion date is November 11, 2025. Its latest CC, issued on September 25, 2019, and valid till May 11, 2020, mentions that the projection has permission to go up to 20th floor. Out of the 54 flats in the building, only 8 have been booked, as per data uploaded by the developer on the MahaRERA portal.

MahaRERA member Bhalchandra Kapadnis noted that despite several notices served on Alamdar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, the developer has not appeared for hearings to inform whether any unsold flat is available in Marine Palace which could be allocated to Bahadurji. He also took note of Bahadurji’s apprehension that unless the developer is prevented from selling flats, she won’t be allocated a flat.

Kapadnis directed the developer to appear before the authority on April 29, 2020, to disclose its unsold inventory.

Advocate Pawar said, “My client is the original tenant of the old building. Despite three hearings being scheduled, the developer did not appear before MahaRERA. If the developer has already sold all the flats, where will she go? This MahaRERA order will serve as adeterrent to builders.”

Source: https://realty.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/regulatory/maharera-tells-alamdar-infrastructure-not-to-sell-flats-to-protect-tenant/74544804

Upholding a Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal order, the Bombay High Court directed a developer to deposit 60 per cent of a refund amount set by the tribunal, before the tribunal hears the appeal.

Justice Bharati Dangre in an order last week refused to interfere with a MREAT order dated December 13, 2019, directing Sahyog Homes to first deposit 60 per cent of Rs 82 lakh refund to be given to a homebuyer.

Section 43 (5) of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act states that a promoter may approach the appellate tribunal but it shall not entertain the appeal unless the promoter deposits a minimum of 30 per cent of the penalty or higher percentage as determined by the tribunal.

An aggrieved Sahyog Homes moved the high court against the MREAT order. When the court indicated that it would not like to interfere with the order, the counsel for the developer submitted that they will deposit 60 per cent of the amount within six weeks from the order. The court then disposed of the appeal.

This is not the first time that a developer has tested this RERA provision before the high court. In February 2019, ITMC Developers Pvt Ltd, the promoter of Sapphire 1 project in Kurla, had also moved court after the tribunal asked the developer to deposit 50 per cent of the refund amount imposed by MahaRERA. The high court had confirmed the tribunal decision and rejected the appeal.

Advocate Tanuj Lodha who represented homebuyer Krishna Agarwal in this case, said, “It’s important that section 43(5) of RERA is adhered to since it safeguards the interest of the allottees.” In September 2019, MahaRERA had held that even an unregistered Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was evidence enough that the homebuyer had booked a flat and directed Sahyog Homes to refund Agarwal Rs 82.95 lakh with 10.75 per cent interest from 2012.

Agarwal had booked flat no 2202 in Verona Tower S2 in Oshiwara in 2012 and paid Rs 82.95 lakh out of the flat cost of Rs 89.41 lakh based on a MoU. The developer promised possession in the 35-storey tower by 2016, but in 2017 it unilaterally revised the possession date to July 31, 2022, the complaint said.

During the hearings, the developer claimed that the Agarwals were not homebuyers but investors and that the MoU was not registered and hence a void document. The company attributed the delay in construction to noncooperation by slum dwellers in the SRA component.

MahaRERA member Madhav Kulkarni observed that the appellate tribunal had held that even in the absence of a registered agreement, such complaints were maintainable. Stating that the developer should not have accepted such huge amounts when the project was not progressing as per schedule, Kulkarni held that the developer had failed to deliver possession of the flat as per agreement and directed it to refund the entire amount with interest. This order was challenged by the developer before the tribunal.

Source: https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/other/builder-to-pay-part-of-refund-before-tribunal-hears-case/articleshow/74431967.cms

Pune

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has directed developers with occupancy certificate to file a source complaint on denial of project with sub-registrar offices for want of Rera enrollment.

“Once a developer files a source complaint, the authority will look into it at the earliest. If the authority decides that the project doesn’t require MahaRERA registration, the developer can approach the sub-registrar office and get the project registered,” a MahaRERA officials said.

The move brings relief to developers in the state as they were not able to register their projects with the sub-registrar office for want of RERA registration, though they had occupancy certificate ready.

As per the rules, projects with occupancy certificates are not required to register with MahaRERA. However, a revenue department circular issued in September last year insisted on registration of all projects with RERA before registering them with sub-registrar offices in the state.

Members of the Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India (Credai) too had raised the issue, saying that the RERA rules specifically mention that projects with completion/occupation certificate before the registration of sale deed were exempted from RERA registration.

Revenue minister Balasaheb Thorat had told TOI last week that he had directed all the departments concerned to issue clarity on the subject.

MahaRERA hearings to commence in Nagpur.

The MahaRERA, which presently conducts hearing in Mumbai and Pune, will extend the hearings to Nagpur too, MahaRERA officials said on Saturday. The move aimed at addressing the pending cases, they added.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/maharera-directs-developers-to-file-source-complaints-if-unable-to-register-project/articleshow/74035664.cms

The regulatory body dismissed a case in which a buyer sought full refund for not getting possession on time.

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has ruled that developers, before making any changes in the approved plan of a project, require the consent of two-thirds of allottees, and once consent is given in writing and the plan is amended, the allottees cannot change their mind.

The order was given last week by MahaRERA member Bhalchandra Kapadnis in the Sunil Wadhwani vs Pashmina Realty Ltd case.

Homebuyer Wadhwani had booked flat no C-701 in Pashmina Lotus located at Chandivali in Powai with the promise of possession on September 30, 2016. Wadhwani sought refund of his investment with interest under Section 18 of RERA contending that the developer failed to deliver by the agreed upon date.

During the hearings, Pashmina Realty Ltd, represented by chartered account Ramesh Prabhu, contended that the plans for 4BHK were considered unviable, and had to be revised to build 2BHK and 3BHK flats in the project. The plans were modified with the written consent of two-thirds of homebuyers, including Wadhwani, as mandated by RERA. Prabhu argued that Wadhwani’s complaint should be dismissed since he gave consent for re-planning under Section 14 (2) of RERA and cannot withdraw his permission now.

Prabhu submitted that Pashmina Lotus project was abandoned and the revised project was registered as Lake Riviera A & B wings with MahaRERA and developer EktaWorld was brought on board as development manager. He said Wadhwani has used the registration number of Pashmina Lotus to file his complaint though he is now an allottee of Lake Riviera and hence his complaint was not maintainable.

Advocates Siddhesh Bhole and Krupashree Sawant, appearing for Wadhwani, pointed out that their client had paid Rs 2.70 crore out of the flat price of Rs 2.76 crore and unless the entire sum is refunded, no subsequent agreement can be executed. Kapadnis observed that the consent under Section 14 (2) of RERA — involving two-thirds allottees — was given to the promoters and Wadhwani had shown readiness to pay Rs 20 lakh for additional carpet area.

“These facts, therefore, establish that on the consent of the complainant, the respondents have acted upon to their disadvantage and hence the complainant is ‘estopped’ under Section 115 of Evidence Act from withdrawing his consent and his status as allottee of the new flats,” Kapadnis said in his 8-page order.

He also said Section 62 of the Contract Act and the principle of novation of contract come into play in this case. Section 62 states that if the parties to a contract agree to substitute it with a new contract, then the original agreement need not be acted upon. It also says that novation requires that the old contract be replaced by a new contract.

Holding that novation of contract should be applied to this case, Kapadnis ruled that the amount paid by Wadhwani for flat no C-701 should be adjusted against the two new flats and directed both parties to register the agreement for sale for the new flats within one month from the order.

Source: https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/other/once-two-thirds-of-homebuyers-give-consent-no-turning-back-maharera/articleshow/73219860.cms

Pune

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has in a recent order held that industrial units or buildings part of such units would not come under the purview of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

RERA adjudicating officer BD Kapadnis observed in an order that complaints related to industrial units could not be covered under the real estate statute.

The officer passed the order while hearing a case related to a complainant who had booked two units in an industrial facility, but failed to get their possession on agreed date of May 31, 2015. The complainant wanted to withdraw from the project and claimed refund of the amount with interests and compensation.

The RERA authorities said the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (Mofa), 1963, was applicable to the units and not the real estate law.

“It is clearly mentioned in the documents that the units are described as ‘estate units’ and they are of ‘big size’. It is mentioned in the documents that the units are agreed to be purchased for setting up industrial business of manufacturing and permitted under industrial location policy,” the RERA adjudicating office observed after going through the relevant documents related to the case.

“After looking into these legal aspects of the matter, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Mofa is applicable to the premises used for carrying on any industry whereas the definition of the apartment does not include the industrial purpose. There remains no doubt in my mind that the industrial units are not included in the definition of apartment in RERA,” the officer added.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/maharera-says-industry-units-not-under-purview/articleshow/73068802.cms

Mumbai

To ensure more professionalism and avoid frauds, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has mandated promoters (builders) to disclose membership details at its registered self-regulatory organisations (SROs).

The main role of SROs involves to create awareness programmes and encourage its members to comply with the provisions of the Act, rules and regulations, circulars issued by the MahaRERA regularly. A copy of the order is with the Free Press Journal.

Commenting on the development, Manju Yagnik, vice chairperson Nahar Group and vice president NAREDCO (Maharashtra) said, “With this inclusion, the SRO will now be responsible for its members adopting the RERA principles, rules and regulations in a more holistic manner.

The move will beneft consumers in terms of responsiveness and transparency. It will also allow SROs to enable developers to ensure greater professionalism on their part, and build confidence and credibility for their brand.”

Likewise, Parth Mehta, the Paradigm Realty managing director, stated, “It is another wise move to bring parity and professional code of conduct to the real estate practices across the state.

The SROs will encourage members to comply with the RERA Act provisions and implement MahaRERA rules and regulations. Unfair activities practised by developers have shaken the confidence of home-buyers, impacting the sector at large.

The move will restore trust deficit between home-buyers and developers, giving a boost to investment in the real estate sector.”

From December 1, builders applying to MahaRERA for registration of their real estate projects shall have to disclose their membership details with registered SROs.

Currently, the registered SROs with MahaRERA are Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry (MCHI), Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India (CREDAI), National Real Estate Development Council (NAREDCO).

While any other group, federation of promoters interested to be registered as an SRO with MahaRERA can apply online. They should have at least 500 MahaRERA registered projects of their members. Once approved, the SRO registration will remain valid for five years, according to MahaRERA.

Source: https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/give-membership-details-at-regd-sros-maharera-tells-builders

Pune

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) will soon have 27 conciliation panels across the state to help address issues between aggrieved consumers and developers and ensure completion of projects on time.

MahaRERA also wants to ensure through the panels that the buyers get what they pay for. Currently, 15 conciliation panels are in operation — 10 in Mumbai and 5 in Pune.

The panels have so far resolved nearly 400 cases of the 541 it received, MahaRERA officials said. The additional 12 panels will be for Pune (1), Thane, Navi Mumbai, Nashik and Nagpur.

These panels comprise a consumer representative and a developer representative, who interact with banks, homebuyers and builders for timely completion of the projects. A recent meeting of the housing ministry had appreciated the formation of the conciliation forums in Maharashtra and urged all other states to replicate the model.

Mumbai Grahak Panchayat (MGP) chairperson Shirish Deshpande, who had taken the lead in forming such forums, said citizens have been registering for conciliation as they believed it would be a quicker process (if both the parties were willing) rather than waiting for a long-drawn case.

“The response towards the forums has been encouraging, both from the consumers and the developers. Keeping this in mind, it was decided to increase the number of such forums,” he said.

The conciliation panels help interact home buyers, builders and banks to maintain the stipulated time declared by the developer on its website.

Earlier last month, MahaRERA ordered seizure and auction of 253 properties of builders across the state to refund flat buyers, who were yet to receive possession because the developers had no funds to complete the projects.

All of these were cases where the buyers saw the real estate value of their flats plummeting and wanted to take advantage of the RERA provisions that allowed them to exit the projects with their investment, along with the interest amounts.

The MahaRERA officials said buyers trying to exit the projects would derail the entire process and told the allottees to get together and “combat the situation”.

Source: https://realty.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/maharera-to-soon-have-27-conciliation-panels-for-timely-project-completion/70812946

Mumbai

Though two homebuyers had only a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) as evidence that they invested in a flat. The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has ruled that it is proof enough of ownership and directed the developer to refund Rs 82.95 lakh with 10.75 per cent interest from 2012.

According to the complaint, Krishna and Veena Agarwal had booked flat in a project in 2012 and paid Rs 82.95 lakh out of the flat cost of Rs 89.41 lakh.

The complaint said the developer had assured possession in 2016, but in 2017, unilaterally changed the possession date to July 31, 2022.

The complaint also said that on the MahaRERA portal, the developer has mentioned that 40 floors are proposed, 28 are completed, but the Commencement Certificate is only till 27th floor; therefore, the Agarwals want to withdraw from the project and seek refund of their investment with interest.

During the hearings, the developer claimed that the Agarwals were not homebuyers but investors and that the MoU was not registered.

MahaRERA member Madhav Kulkarni observed that the Appellate Tribunal had held that even in the absence of a registered agreement, such complaints are maintainable.

Stating that the developer should not have accepted such a huge amount when the project was not progressing as per schedule, Kulkarni held that the builder had failed to deliver possession of the flat as per agreement and directed the company to refund the paid amount from the date of payment till final realisation.

Source: https://realty.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/maharera-says-mou-proof-enough-for-ownership/71002224

Pune

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority(MahaRERA) has for the first time taken suo motu action against two real estate agencies based out of Pune and Kalyan for facilitating sale of unregistered projects.

MahaRERA chairperson Gautam Chatterjee slapped Rs 80,000 and Rs 40,000 as fine on the Pune and Kalyan projects, respectively, last week. MahaRERA officials said the suo motu action was taken by Chatterjee because in both the instances, “unregistered” projects were being sold. TheReal Estate (Regulation and Development) Act makes registration of projects a must before sale.

“For the real estate agents, it is mandatory to sell the registered projects. The authorities initiated the action because the projects sold in Pune and Kalyan were unregistered,” a senior RERA official told TOI.

In the case in Pune, an agency facilitated the sale of apartments in a project spread over a 100-acre township in the Haveli area through advertisements on various social media websites without mentioning any MahaRERA registration details. In the second case, an another agency facilitated the sale of apartments in an unregistered project in Kalyan by circulating SMSs dated August 9, 2019.

In both the cases, MahaRERA noted that the material placed before it prima facie revealed that the agencies had facilitated the sale of apartments in projects not registered (with MahaRERA). This was in violation of Section 10(a) of the The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act. The officials said MahaRERA decided to take suo motu cognizance in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 35 of the Act. Subsequently, a notice to the agents was issued and they were told to appear before the authority and explain their stand on the issue.

“In both the cases, the respondents, or the registered agents, have tendered apology and vowed not to solicit, misguide or engage in such facilitation of advertisements or sale. They submitted an affidavit that such violations of the Act would not happen in future and that they would strictly comply with the provisions of the statutes and the rules, regulations, orders and circulars issued under it,” an official said.

MahaRera chairperson in his hearing accepted that the violations of the provisions of the Act were inadvertent and the agents did not have any intention to show non-compliance towards the Act or its rules.

He has taken an undertaking from both agents that such a violation of the Act would not happen in future.

Source: https://realty.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/regulatory/maharera-takes-suo-motu-action-against-two-real-estate-agencies/71073545